Erdogan versus Israel: Is the action in Gaza a new genocide?

In brief

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accuses Israel of genocide in the Gaza Strip, placing Benjamin Netanyahu's actions on par with Nazi crimes. This conflict has moved from a phase of verbal skirmishes to a level of systemic threat to regional relations. Ankara fears that after the Gaza Strip, Turkish territory could become the next flashpoint in Israel's defense strategy.

The genocide narrative as a foundation of policy

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan openly accuses Israel of genocide in the Gaza Strip, repeatedly comparing the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu's government to the crimes of Nazi Germany. Since September 2025, when he publicly rejected the definition of the conflict as a war in the classic sense of the word, this rhetoric has become the main vector of Turkish foreign policy. Ankara has stopped seeking space for mediation, choosing the path of ideological confrontation.

Comparing Israeli actions to the World War II era is not a random rhetorical device. On June 18, 2025, in statements broadcast by Polskie Radio 24, a firm call to stop Israel was voiced, which in Erdoğan's eyes became a key requirement for ensuring the security of the entire region. The Turkish leader argues that the international community's passivity toward events in Gaza paves the way for further military expansion by Tel Aviv.

Such a stance closes the door to any diplomatic thaw. From Ankara's perspective, any concession to the Netanyahu government would be an admission of being in the wrong to a party that, in Erdoğan's assessment, is committing crimes against humanity. This approach forces Turkish diplomacy into constant escalation, which can be seen in the calendar of events from 2025 and 2026. Turkey, as a NATO member, finds itself in an exceptionally difficult situation – on one hand, it is part of the Western security system, and on the other, it is becoming the most ardent critic of one of that system's most important allies in the Middle East.

Escalation of tensions: From declarations to open hostility

Relations between Ankara and Tel Aviv have deteriorated drastically, as confirmed by events over the last dozen or so months. As early as October 1, 2024, Erdoğan warned that Israeli aggression was not limited solely to the Palestinian issue but was aimed at destabilizing Turkey itself. This statement, made by the head of a NATO member state, radically changed the perception of the conflict within alliance structures.

The spring of 2026 brought a series of events that permanently cemented the current impasse. On April 12, 2026, media outlets, including Euronews, reported on the growing political storm between the leaders of both countries. Each subsequent speech by Netanyahu and Erdoğan pushes the parties further from a compromise, turning diplomacy into an exchange of accusations. Just a day later, on April 13, 2026, the weekly Solidarność published an analysis pointing to a growing fear in Turkish power circles of being the next target of Israeli actions. This fear of a direct military threat became fuel for Turkey's internal mobilization.

Mutual hostility reached a critical point on June 28, 2026, when Israel officially recognized the Armenian Genocide. For Ankara, which for decades has pursued a historical policy based on the denial of this fact, it was a slap in the face to the foundations of national identity. Turkey's sharp response was inevitable and served as a retort to earlier attacks regarding its actions in the Gaza Strip. In this game, history has become a weapon used by both sides without restraint, which makes the chance of a return to normal diplomatic relations in the foreseeable future close to zero.

Threat to NATO and investors

The confrontation between Turkey and Israel carries concrete consequences for the global order and the security of investments. NATO faces the challenge of how to manage a dispute between two key partners, one of whom is a member of the Alliance and the other a strategic ally in the Middle East. For foreign investors, especially in the energy and defense sectors, this situation means unpredictability.

Turkey, by controlling strategic maritime routes and being a significant player in the region, influences the level of investment risk through its actions. Companies operating in Turkey must reckon with the possibility of economic retaliation or sudden tightening of regulations in response to the current political situation. Uncertainty regarding future relations with Israel affects long-term financial strategies. Capital abhors a vacuum, and in the case of the Middle East, every declaration about the "threat of Israeli aggression" affects risk valuations in the portfolios of investment funds.

Moreover, this polarization hinders the coordination of intelligence activities in the region. Cooperation in counter-terrorism, which years ago was the domain of Turkish-Israeli contacts, is now almost non-existent. This means that Western intelligence services must rely on less verified channels of information exchange, which increases the risk of errors in assessing the situation in the Middle East. For investors, this means that the stability of the region has become an illusion, and any sudden troop movement or sharp statement by a politician can trigger a chain reaction in commodity markets.

The dynamics of fear: Is Turkey next?

The fear of the conflict expanding to the north is not merely a rhetorical ploy by Erdoğan. Concerns that Turkey could become the next target of Israeli actions permeate public debate and are becoming an element of Ankara's defense strategy. On April 13, 2026, the media explicitly pointed to this anxiety as a significant factor influencing the Turkish government's decisions.

Strategically positioning Turkey as the only real defender of the Muslim world against Israeli aggression allows Erdoğan to consolidate the electorate around national security slogans. At the same time, however, this same strategy isolates Turkey on the international stage. Western allies view the comparison of Israel's actions to Nazi Germany with increasing reservation, perceiving it as historical manipulation that distorts the image of contemporary challenges.

From an editorial perspective, it is crucial to understand that this dispute is not just about Gaza. It is a clash for dominance in a region where history – from 1915 to contemporary events in the Gaza Strip – is used as a tool of current political struggle. Israel, by responding with the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, opted for a strategy of striking at Ankara's sensitive point, which only confirms that neither side is interested in de-escalation. For the reader, this means one thing: the situation in the Middle East will remain tense, and Turkey will continue to use every opportunity to strike at Israel's image, thereby risking a further deterioration of its position within Western alliance structures.

Questions and answers

Why does Erdogan refer to Nazi Germany so often in the context of Israel?

The President of Turkey uses this comparison to give his accusations of genocide in the Gaza Strip maximum gravity, which is intended to mobilize public opinion in Turkey and the Muslim world against the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu's government.

What consequences for international relations did Israel's recognition of the Armenian Genocide in 2026 have?

This step, taken on June 28, 2026, was perceived by Ankara as a direct attack on the foundations of Turkish statehood and triggered an immediate, sharp diplomatic reaction, which ultimately closed the path to any dialogue between the states.

Do Turkey's fears of an attack by Israel have a real basis?

According to reports from April 13, 2026, Turkish authorities are expressing serious concerns that Israeli policy of aggression may extend beyond the current geographical framework, which forces Ankara to revise its own defense plans and build a narrative about a regional threat.

What significance does the dispute between Ankara and Tel Aviv have for investors?

This conflict introduces high unpredictability into the region, which affects investment risk valuations, hinders cooperation in the defense and energy sectors, and destabilizes existing intelligence alliances upon which business strategies in this part of the world were based.

When did the most serious accusations of genocide from Erdogan begin?

Although this rhetoric was growing, September 23, 2025, is considered the formal turning point, when the President of Turkey publicly defined Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip not as a war, but as genocide.